Apples and Oranges

Godless Capitalist slams the Canadian medical system again. That's just too many times today for me to stay quiet.

Dear Godless: Please familiarize yourself a little further with the Canadian health care system. A key statistic is per-capita spending which is around C$3200, or about US$2440. That's for universal health care, year 2000-2001.

In that same year the US health care system spent around $4600. At that figure around 84% of the population was covered (16% had no insurance). Medical insurance rates here have increased tremendously since then (I know; my company has been paying them).

The assertion that a private system _must_ be more efficient is simply erroneous. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.

A 2003 study of costs indicated the following (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2DE1F30F932A1575BC0A9659C8B63):

"BOSTON, Aug. 20 -- A comparison of health care costs has found that 31 cents of every dollar spent on health care in the United States pays administrative costs, nearly double the rate in Canada.
Researchers who prepared the comparison said today that the United States wasted more money on health bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to the tens of millions of the uninsured. Americans spend $752 more per person per year than Canadians in administrative costs, investigators from Harvard and the Canadian Institute for Health Information found.
Published: 08 - 21 - 2003 , Late Edition - Final , Section A , Column 6 , Page 23"

Here's the point -- you simply cannot compare the two. They're apples and oranges. The Canadian system has very tight control on costs and yes, this leads to shortages at times. When the pain gets great enough, the population speaks and the purse strings come open.

Note that there are no significant differences between the US and Canada in any health metrics such as length of life and so forth. We're all basically equal.

Canada _could_ elect to dramatically increase its spending on health, by say 20% or 30%. This would still keep its total costs far below those of the US, per capita, but would substantially increase quality of care, and on the average could probably exceed levels of service in the US. Certainly, some might make the argument that there is a moral purpose to doing this.

Note that with health costs contained and handled by the government, Canadian businesses are free to concentrate on what they _should_ be concentrating on: Being efficient providers of services and goods. They don't have to babysit their employees and be "big brother" like US companies are _compelled_ to do.

There are no controls on medical spending in the US. The current system is utterly broken and spiralling out of control. I believe that there are private solutions that can work.

Walmart can help. Walmart can demand of its insurance providers that they agree to insure _anyone_ wherever Walmart has a store. Walmart doesn't pay the tab, of course -- the person getting the insurance does. But that individual is getting Walmart's negotiating power. And I don't mind seeing Walmart take a cut of that money.

Relatively inexpensive catastrophic coverage insurance is one possible solution...

Posted by Ross Ross on   |   § 0

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]